The Journal of laryngology and otology · 2022
Correlation between subjective and objective voice analysis pre- and post-shift among teleoperators in a tertiary hospital.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rahman M, Saniasiaya J, Abu Bakar M Z
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Teachers and singers have been extensively studied and are shown to have a greater tendency to voice disorders. This study aimed to investigate the correlation between subjective and objective voice analysis pre- and post-shift among teleoperators in a tertiary hospital.
METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study. Each patient underwent pre- and post-shift voice analysis.
RESULTS: Among 42 teleoperators, 28 patients (66.7 per cent) completed all the tests. Female predominance (62 per cent) was noted, with a mean age of 40 years. Voice changes during working were reported by 48.1 per cent. Pre- and post-shift maximum phonation time (p < 0.018) and Voice Handicap Index-10 (p < 0.011) showed significant results with no correlation noted between subjective and objective assessment.
CONCLUSION: Maximum phonation time and Voice Handicap Index-10 are good voice assessment tools. The quality of evidence is inadequate to recommend 'gold standard' voice assessment until a better-quality study has been completed.
METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study. Each patient underwent pre- and post-shift voice analysis.
RESULTS: Among 42 teleoperators, 28 patients (66.7 per cent) completed all the tests. Female predominance (62 per cent) was noted, with a mean age of 40 years. Voice changes during working were reported by 48.1 per cent. Pre- and post-shift maximum phonation time (p < 0.018) and Voice Handicap Index-10 (p < 0.011) showed significant results with no correlation noted between subjective and objective assessment.
CONCLUSION: Maximum phonation time and Voice Handicap Index-10 are good voice assessment tools. The quality of evidence is inadequate to recommend 'gold standard' voice assessment until a better-quality study has been completed.